I spend a fair amount of time writing about religion, atheism, and related matters.  Why do I care so much? Why do I bother? Why not just spend time doing something more constructive than writing articles?

Is it because, deep down, I know the truth about god (and monogamy) but I have to rebel publicly in order to convince myself that I’m doing the right thing or living the right way? Or is it because I’m so twisted up and confused inside, fearful and insecure that I am projecting all of my issues onto concepts of god and rejecting them? Or is it because I just have to be heard, that I have to be right, and I want as many people to know it as possible?

Now, I cannot speak for other atheists, at least not with authority.  I can only say that my motivation is genuine and considered.  I am of the opinion that a cultural discussion and sharing of ideas is crucial if we are to continue to grow and mature as not only a society but as individuals.  All too often the things we disagree with are left unsaid or said in the echo chambers of like-minded groups.  All too rare is the communication between those groups with differing worldviews.

Now, I’ve been accused of being unaware or uninterested in the perspective of those with faith.  Because I treat their views harshly and use strong language, I must, say some, have no interest in an honest evaluation of their arguments.  If I say, for example, that there is no good argument for Christianity, it implies a certain close-mindedness rather than an openness, right?

But what am I faced with? Virgin births, resurrection of a god-man, and little to no historical evidence that any of it happened and I am supposed to orient my life towards the teachings of this person, this god, that the “evidence” presented is chock full of bad arguments, logical fallacies, and outright lies.  If anyone were to present that type of evidence for anything outside of religion, the statement that there is no good reason to think it is true would not be found to be obnoxious, arrogant or unwarranted.

The simple fact is that the claims of much of contemporary theism are obnoxious and arrogant in themselves.  I am not arrogant for not believing them and saying so proudly, am I? Something like 45% of people in the United States believe in some form of creationism.  In other words, they deny evolution as some sort of mass conspiracy or lie; now that’s irony.  We are supposed to lie down for this and be respectful of these views?

I’ve said it before, but there is an important difference between respect for persons and respect for ideas.  There is no room for respect for certain ideas, creationism is perhaps prime among them in today’s world, but the respect for a person is still important.  This is the distinction between an ad hominem and an argument against an idea.  It is sort of like the idea of hating the sin and not the sinner.

I don’t hate religion and I don’t hate religious people.  In fact, I like quite a few religious people, even if they don’t think they are actually religious and call themselves ‘spiritual’ or something like that.  I think that many religious ideas are harmful, absurd, and can be shown to be so.  Some people, including atheists, think that efforts by myself and the big names in the so-called new atheist movement are making them look bad and are hurting their efforts.  With all due respect, atheist appeasers, what efforts?

Recently a bunch of people from the Secular Student Alliance visited the creation “museum” in Kentucky.  They did this for many reasons, one of which was because they wanted to get an up-close look at what people are being shown.  The bottom line is that Ken Ham and his AiG crew are using bad science and misleading hundreds of thousands of people with either poor science or bold-faced lying for Jesus.  What response should be taken besides what people like PZ Myers and Jerry Coyne are doing? Should we be more polite like Michael Ruse or Mooney and Kirshenbaum?

I get that people get defensive when they are challenged.  I get that there is room in the discussion for calm and measured responses.  But there is a point when the only reasonable reaction is laughter and mockery.  There comes a point when calm and respectful interlocution is only acting to legitimize a view that is not legitimate.  Thus, those that argue to “teach the controversy” have it all wrong; if we were to teach the real controversy we would be doing precisely what the new atheists are doing.  We would be showing precisely what is wrong with the arguments used by those who want to be part of the debate when, in fact, they are not.  They are trying to reorient the debate to include themselves.  They are trying to squirm their way in and we will mock them to where they belong, which is not even on the fringes.

We are not afraid of criticism.  We don’t avoid conflict with our worldview, we are just tired of people who are so obviously incorrect trying to pretend that they have a legitimate claim to make.  There is no longer room to tolerate absurdities in the discussion.  If you have a good criticism or question, present it to the discussion and if it is a valid concern it will be addressed.  And if it is dismissed because it has already been answered many times and refuted sufficiently, don’t whine about how you are being expelled.

There is a sort of cult of martyrdom and persecution complex within much of the conservative religious world.  When cartoons depicting Mohammed as violent surface, Moslems react violently.  When Christianity is legitimately criticized in the public discussion, they cry about being persecuted and that God is being kicked out of society.  This is silly.  If their god exists, there would be nothing one could ever do to kick it out.  Nobody is taking your private worship away, only preventing it from becoming public by mixing politics and religion.

The new atheists are here to challenge theism, whether it be Christianity, Islam, new age silliness, etc because religion (both organized and cult-like anarcho-personal religion) has held sway in ways that are damaging to our world.  They are propping up anti-science and anti-criticism that only seeks to defend itself from looking at itself honestly.

What about the liberal religionists?

I want to say a few words about those who are not part of the conservative movement in religion.  Those who accept evolution, science, support progressive ideas like same-sex marriage and who generally don’t have an issue with atheists and other skeptics.  How do you reconcile the fact that the books you base your beliefs about god also contain ideas that you reject? Why do you only accept part of the scripture? Is this not hypocritical?

We appreciate you not being Dark Ages backward.  But why do you compartmentalize your views such that you accept one thing on faith? Why is faith good?  Why isn’t faith considered backward?

And why aren’t you challenging your conservative cousins?

We don’t hate you, we hate that you are making us do your dirty work because you are too cowardly to do it yourself.  Cowardly, perhaps, because you realize deep-down that a challenge to them is also a challenge to yourself.  You cannot undercut their faith without undercutting your own.

There is a genuine conflict between tendencies in religious thinking and the scientific method.  One must compartmentalize one’s mind to believe in science and virgin births.  Recognize this conflict and deal with it.  Until you do that, many of us will continue to lack respect for your worldviews, but we will continue to respect your ethical and legal right to believe and express what you believe.

I just hope you respect my belief that your beliefs may be worthy of mockery.

Many critics of atheism will comment that atheism is just another religion or that it requires faith.  So, is it a religion? Does it require faith to be an atheist?

Put simply; no, that is ludicrous. Atheism is a religion in the same way that baldness is a hair color. It requires faith in the same way as people who don’t believe in the Invisible Pink Unicorn requires faith; in other words it doesn’t.

But before I address the question in more depth, I would like to supply a quote of Einstein’s which I find to be thought provoking and relevant:

The most beautiful and deepest experience a man can have is the sense of the mysterious. It is the underlying principle of religion as well as all serious endeavor in art and science. He who never had this experience seems to me, if not dead, then at least blind. To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is a something that our mind cannot grasp and whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly and as a feeble reflection, this is religiousness. In this sense I am religious. To me it suffices to wonder at these secrets and to attempt humbly to grasp with my mind a mere image of the lofty structure of all that there is.

It is in this sense that an atheist might be considered religious, and no other. Richard Dawkins has expressed a similar view, and agrees that he is religious in this sense. This deep awe of mystery is something that can be appreciated with or without a belief in any deity.

However, it seems disingenuous to equivocate this specific and unorthodox use of the word “religious” with it’s more common use; to conflate this sense of awe that atheists can feel with what we usually call “religion.” A universally accepted and universal definition of religion is a difficult task. That is, many definitions that we can refer to will seem to exclude some other things that we generally call religious as well as include others that seem like a stretch to include. If we say religion requires God, then we are leaving out religious traditions that often don’t require a god such as much of Buddhism. If we stretch the definition to something like ‘devotion’ to something or something equally vague, then we essentially define it to be meaningless; does my interest in hockey make hockey a religion? Is baseball a religion? How about stamp collecting?

Wikipedia defines religion as follows:

A religion is an organized approach to human spirituality which usually encompasses a set of narratives, symbols, beliefs and practices, often with a supernatural or transcendent quality, that give meaning to the practitioner’s experiences of life through reference to a higher power, God or gods, or ultimate truth.^[1] It may be expressed through prayer, ritual, meditation, music and art, among other things. It may focus on specific supernatural, metaphysical, and moral claims about reality (the cosmos and human nature) which may yield a set of religious laws, ethics, and a particular lifestyle. Religion also encompasses ancestral or cultural traditions, writings, history, and mythology, as well as personal faith and religious experience.

The term “religion” refers to both the personal practices related to communal faith and to group rituals and communication stemming from shared conviction. “Religion” is sometimes used interchangeably with “faith” or “belief system,”^[2] but it is more socially defined than personal convictions, and it entails specific behaviors, respectively.

This seems like a fair definition, thus I will use it as a guidepost for my attempt to answer the question at hand. It may not be the most accurate of definitions, but I believe it to be largely uncontroversial and it suffices for our use here.

So, what’s an atheist? My definition, a definition shared by many atheists within my radar, is that atheism is the lack of belief in god. Some will include those that say god does not exist (the so-called “strong” atheists), but I believe that the only necessary aspect of atheism is the lack of belief. The assertion that god does not exist is certainly sufficient for someone being an atheist, but said assertion is certainly not necessary but rather in addition to the lack of belief.

So, with these definitions in hand, let me address the relevant questions.

Is atheism the lack of religion?

I address this because some people try to answer the question of whether atheism is a religion by suggesting that atheism is simply the lack of religion. This does not hold up for a number of reasons. The first, as mentioned above, is that it would imply that non-theistic religions are actually not religions at all. Despite the fact that Zen Buddhism does not claim that gods do not exist (nor that they do!), I think that most of us would agree that Zen should be included as a religion. It has specific practices, is based on a person (the Buddha as well as other Buddhist teachers), and is shared by a common group (other Buddhists).

One might argue that Zen might not technically be atheistic, as it seems to be more of a position of doubt.  However, I argue that the distinction between atheism and theism is sharp; there is no middle ground. The proposed middle ground of agnosticism is incorrect, as agnosticism is an answer to what we know, not what we believe. I, for example am an agnostic atheist; I lack belief in gods, but ultimately I do not claim to know for sure. Thus without an active and conscious belief in god, one is an atheist. This includes people who reserve judgment. Further, if any Zen Buddhist could be found that did not believe in gods, this lack of belief would not be in contradiction with his or her being a Buddhist, and therefore someone could be both a Buddhist and an atheist.

Another reason is that the simple lack of belief in the gods does not necessarily make one anti-religious. There are many beautiful rituals, writings, and other aspects of religious practice that someone who did not accept the claims of gods can appreciate. Further, one might still remain as part of a theistic community and participate in the rituals, songs, etc without believing in the god of said religion. In this sense, we might call that person a religious atheist, just like the Buddhist above.  I’m sure that there are many people taht don’t believe in god but still particupate in religion, quietly.

The question of whether one believes in God has nothing to do with being religious; someone who is a theist is not necessarily religious. Simply believing gods exist does not mean that person is also a member of some religion or not. The point being that atheism is not simply the lack of religion, as a person’s atheism/theism does not have anything directly to do with being religious or irreligious. Theology does not imply religion, nor religion theology.

Does atheism require faith?

People, such as Ray Comfort from Way of the Master, have tried to argue that there are no atheists. His argument is that in order to prove that god does not exist; the atheist would have to know everything. Nobody knows everything, so nobody can know there is no god. Looking past Comfort’s misunderstanding of what an atheist is, the point he’s making is that when someone says they believe there is no god, they are making a faith claim; one that many apologists claim is a stronger claim than the theist makes. Atheists are, according to people that propose this argument, believing something extraordinary without being capable of knowing it for sure. This is simply not the case.

What is faith? The way I understand and use the term, it means a belief in something either despite the lack of evidence for it or evidence against it. If there were evidence, there would be no need for faith. Faith is not held for rational reasons, but rather outside of rationality. Atheism cannot require faith because atheism does not require any beliefs at all–rational or not.

To believe in the stories of the various religions which have little to no supporting evidence one must accept them despite this lack of evidence. Most Christians believes that Jesus Christ lived, preached, performed miracles, was crucified, and on the third day rose from the dead. They believe this person was God-incarnate. This is an article of faith, as no historical evidence could verify this. Even if the historical events that were supposed to have happened actually occurred, the belief that Jesus was God is something that must be accepted by faith. In short, faith has an object it believes in

Atheism does not require faith because it is simply a lack of a specific kind of belief. Atheism only exists because some people make claims; they claim there is a god, and it’s like this, that, or some otehr thing. The atheist simply rejects the claim. When someone comes along and says that the atheist has a belief–that god does not exist–they are incorrect because they misunderstand what atheism is. As I discussed above, this assertion that god does not exist, while held by many atheists, is not the definition of atheism itself but is an extension of the lack of belief.

Conclusion

So, what does all this amount to? Atheism is the lack of belief in any and all god concepts that particular theists propose. It is the responsibility of the theist, the one making a theological claim, to bear the burden of proof. Their religious conviction (whatever it may be), if it claims a god exists, is the proposal and the atheist hears that proposal and says “no, I don’t believe that.” The atheist is not making any claim at all. What the atheist does is reject the claim and lack belief in the gods the theists propose.

The only thing that ties atheists together is the shared lack of belief–and this is a very loose tie. Getting atheists to organize, agree, or in general share anything in addition to this lack of belief is like herding cats. There are no rituals, social coherence, or beliefs at all. There is a simple lack of belief. That’s it. If two atheists happen to share a belief, it is a coinidence and there is no significance to atheism at all.

Part of the confusion is, I think, based in the fact that atheism has the ‘-ism’ in it. This is because atheism comes from a-theist, not because it comes from athe-ism or anything like that. It’s not a positive assertion but a lack of acceptance of millions of assertions by theists. That is, atheism is the lack (a- means lack of, or ‘without’) of theism (belief in god).

And if particular atheists act in a religious way, either in awe of their beliefs (a la Einstein’s mysteries) or in some evangelical fervor to spread their atheism to the world, this is not evidence of them being religious necessarily. Their actions might share common characteristics of religious people, but that’s merely because these characteristics are part of human nature and have been understandably adopted by religion over the millennia. Religion is a human activity, so its attributes will be common to most humans, even the ones that happen to not believe in god. But atheism itself is a specific answer to a particular theological/philosophical question. Anything else the person who gives this answer does is strictly in addition to their being an atheist. It is not part of their atheism.

So, unless we are willing to call the lack of belief in god, which has no beliefs, rituals, etc at all, a religion, atheism does not qualify as a religion. Again, an atheist can be religious, and a theist can be non-religious, but this does not make atheism a religion any more than it makes theism a non-religion; theology and religion are separate issues. Anyone who claims atheism is a religion needs to be called on it and corrected.

It is commonly said that the United States is a Christian nation.  This is usually said in the context of a discussion about issues pertaining to the separation of church and state.  It is said mostly by Christians who wish to maintain this relationship between an old cultural institution and our culture.  It is both true and false.

There can be no doubt that our culture is certainly embalmed in Christian ideologies.  From common phrases to ritualistic behaviors, our language and culture are steeped in Christian concepts that enriches our art, entertainment, and beliefs in many ways.  In this sense, we are undoubtedly a nation that owes much of its identity to religion–specifically to Christianity in its many forms.

But at the same time those men who gathered together in the beautiful city of Philadelphia in the latter parts of the 18th century had an idea.  It was not an idea shared by all of them due to their many differences, but it was one that carried through in the final draft of the Constitution which is the legal basis for the United States.  This idea was to create a state that would not be mired by religious differences.  It was an attempt to make sure that the opinions of some men, or even the majority of them, could not create an official state position when it came to theology.

Conscience.  This was a key concept that underlay the discussion about what role religion would play in the states, as outlined in the Constitution.  A man whose personal beliefs differed from that of another man, a town, or even the rest of the nation was still entitled to the same rights as anyone else.  His conscience is not subject to legislation.  A state that proclaims any theological belief will, inevitably, find conflict with the conscience of some citizens.

The concept of separation of church and state was designed to not only protect atheists like myself (as well as Moslems, Hindus, etc) but also the many Christian sects that exist.  If this is a Christian nation, which sect of Christian is it?  This was precisely the concern that the Baptist church in Danbury had when Thomas Jefferson wrote them in 1802 (I write about this in more detail here). The separation was designed to prevent such absurdities from coming up in political conversations.

Ask the next person who says that this is a Christian nation which denomination or sect it is.  If they say that this is just a Christian nation, and not any particular sect, then ask them if the United States is works or faith based, Calvinsist or not, or if it might be unitarian (because they think they are Christians too) and watch them writhe out an answer.

The separation of church and state can be viewed as a protection of the general public from these divisive and sectarian issues that will only seek to slow down political processes.  Yes, this culture is predominantly Christian in many respects, but there is a difference between what we are culturally and what we are politically.  And thank all goodness for that, because if we allowed our culture to dictate our politics in all manners, think of how aweful our politics would be.  Oh, wait…I think I just had a epiphany; that’s why our political system is so screwed up!

Just compare the rules set down in the Ten Commandments and try to apply them to United States law, as so many in Congress have said proudly to their pious voters.  No, really, let’s do that.  Oh, wait, we have to decide which version of the Ten Commandments to use.  That will be too cumbersome.  I’ll just deal with one of them, from Exodus 20:3

3 Do not have any other gods before me.

Simple enough.  Oh, wait.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…

Hmm, that’s the first part of the first Amendment, from the Bill of Rights.  So, if I have another god, say Allah, Vishnu, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, etc, then I am in violation of the first Commandment (and this a bad citizen of the Christian States of America) but am still protected by the first Amendment. And somehow this Christian nation overlooked this?

This is a complex issue with many parts, and I don’t intend to deal with it exhaustively here.  My intent is to look at Christianity’s status within our culture, and I admit that much of our culture is Christian.  It is unfortunate that this is the case, because Christianity is a sickness that is not making us better, more moral, or making our nation stronger. In fact, it’s popularity with people should be compared with what else is popular.

Much like the rest of our culture, the people in our nation are commonly held into habitual behaviors that are unhealthy for us.  We eat fast food, watch bad entertainment, and we believe bad ideas.  A Big Mac will cause you to have bad health, American Idol will limit your mind to a parochial worldview of beauty, music, and art, and Christianity will shield you from true profundity of thought about the world and limit us to iron-age beliefs that keep getting recycled with newer and newer hip words.

This is not to say that anyone who ever eats at McDonald’s is necessarily unhealthy, someone who enjoys American Idol has no musical taste, or that all Christians are dullards, but that these types of things can only serve to diminish us.  Sure, Big Macs taste great (it’s been so long since I’ve had one I’ll have to take others’ word for this), American Idol is entertaining and the people on it have talent, and Christianity has had some profound thinkers and has inspired beauty, but on a whole these things are more harmful to our culture than helpful.

Just like unhealthy food is packed with fats, sugars, and other nutritionally deficient ingredients, the worldview that Christianity promotes is most often bad for us psychologically and intellectually.  It asks us to “admit” that we are sinners, worthy of damnation.  It asks us to submit to the will of God (Islam is equally guilty of this, as ‘Islam’ means submission).  Christianity often asks us to submit our reason and rationality to faith; Martin Luther famously called reason a “whore ” and Augustine thought that understanding came after faith.  That is, don’t think rationally unless you already accept the message of Christianity, then think within that belief.

Theology is a tool by which we use our genius and creativity to make sense of what we emotionally, and not rationally, accept.  We like to eat unhealthy food and don’t like to think of how bad it is for us.  We like to believe in God and Jesus even though there is no reason to believe that either exists.  We are eating and believing ourselves into corners out of which we do not easily escape.

And so the genius of our American forefathers was that they understood that religion was divisive, and set up some protections from their sectarianism.  They set up regulations to make sure that no particular belief can have legislative sway over others.  And thank ‘god’ they did, because now we have a secular government that is set up to ensure that our fast food loving, American Idol loving, Christian nation does not destroy itself with it’s unhealthy habits.  OK, so it doesn’t do that.  In fact, all it really does it make sure that you cannot infuse your sectarian beliefs on the rest of us, and you are free to believe whatever silly things you want.

Oh, and I have the freedom of speech that allows me to criticize your silly ideas.

I’ll fight for a person’s right to speak so long as that person will, in return, fight to allow me to challenge their opinions and ridicule them as the content of their ideas merit.